HARI CHAND Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has challenged the order 30.10.2013 (Annexure A -8) vide which the penalty of removal from service was imposed upon the applicant and he has prayed for restating him back in service in the same capacity with all the consequential benefits. A perusal of the pleading of the parties would disclose that the applicant, while working as GDS MD, Jalugraon BO in account with Jairee, was confronted with a charge sheet dated 2.4.2013 with the allegations that he had misappropriated the money sent through money orders inasmuch as instead of paying the money to the payee, he himself forged the signature of payee and used the amount of Rs. 2970/ -. An enquiry was conducted in which the applicant was held guilty of the charges. Moreover, the applicant had accepted that he had received and used the amount of the money orders after forging the signature of the payee. The charge stands accepted by him in toto as per written statement dated 5.8.2013 (Annexure R -3) and 24.8.2013 (Annexure R -4). He has asked for pardon with a promise not to repeat the mistake in future.

(2.) THE Inquiry Officer conducted the enquiry and on the basis of admission made by the applicant the charges were proved against him. Taking a lenient view in the matter, the Inspector of Post Offices, Kullu, passed order dated 20.9.2013 (Annexure A -4) imposing the penalty of restraining the applicant for two years for appearance in Departmental Examinations for the post of Postman. However, the Sr. Supdt. of Post Offices, Mandi issued a notice dated 10.10.2013 to the applicant to show cause as to why the penalty may not be enhanced as the charges levelled and proved against him are serious in nature relating to embezzlement of pensioners money which has dented the image of the department also. This was replied to by the applicant vide letter dated 15.10.2013 intimating that it was due to over -load of work that the delay was caused in disbursement of the amount sent through money orders. However, the Appellate Authority has formed an opinion that the applicant cannot be let off by imposition of a lighter penalty as he has committed a grave act and misconduct and as such penalty of removal from service has been imposed upon him.

(3.) WE have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the material on the file with their able assistance.